Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 9

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 9

RCAF strategical map in the Battle of Britain

Hello everyone. In a history project, I have to make a poster detailing the Battle of Britain and Canada's role in it. As such, I need to provide a map of the Royal Canadian Air Force's strategies to defeat the Germans in the Battle. I have looked everywhere but I can't find anything, all I could see were overall maps of the British Isles. Could anyone help me out? Thanks so much! 64.229.183.165 (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a good reason why you can't find anything. "Canadian airmen played their part in the Battle of Britain", but mostly in the RAF. Only one RCAF squadron participated in the fighting. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Start by reading our Battle of Britain article. Also have a look at Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain#Canadian contribution. A breakdown of the nationalities of the fighter pilots is at Statistics of the Battle of Britain although the Wikipedia article notes that Canada disputes the RAF figure of 88 Canadian pilots. There are maps here, here and here. We also have an article about the base used by the Canadian Squadron during the battle at RAF Croydon. More information about the Canadian contribution to the battle is at THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN - THE CANADIANS. Good luck! Alansplodge (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Clumsy typography on old buildings

Why is it that the iron lettering on old buildings (like "AD 1734") usually looks rather clumsy? I can imagine you couldn't specify Verdana as the font to be used in 1734, but "that piece of iron actually resembles a "3", let's use that one" probably doesn't reflect the state of art at the time either. Joepnl (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In a building that old, it's probably hand made, by a blacksmith. Try hammering white-hot iron letters sometime and see how good they come out. StuRat (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Metalworking in 1734 was reasonably sophisticated, I think "clumsy" here is being used subjectively to mean "I don't like the font style they used" rather than "they were technically inept". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind it may be a reasonably modern addition, made to 'look old'. --Dweller (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If the question is about "vernacular buildings" (ordinary houses, cottages, farm buildings etc) rather than "high-status" ones (manor houses, public buildings, churches), then the lettering might well have been done as an afterthought by the builder, owner or (as StuRat says) by a local tradesman who hadn't been trained for the job. I found this picture of a reasonably well-built house in Mottram in Longdendale, or on a lock-keeper's cottage at Bank Newton. Wealthy people could afford to have it done properly. Alansplodge (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I always just assumed this was the style, you see it in colonial era buildings all over the Delaware Valley area from Valley Forge to the Batsto Village. A google image search leads to this for wrought iron house numbers and letters with the style still in common use such as this. μηδείς (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably the word "clumsy" has a lot of connotations I didn't mean, I'm sorry for that. I meant "the numbers don't look as if someone got paid a lot for creating them, they look as if the five year old nephew of the blacksmith was allowed to give it a try". The clue might be in the play with 6 and 9 in Alansplodge's picture which at first sight also looked "clumsy" to me but is obviously meant to look that way (though kerning wasn't invented back then I guess). I'll try to get some pictures tomorrow that also look clumsy but where there doesn't appear to be a reason like a 6 and 9 resembling each other, or actually not a reason someone born later than 1700 would understand. (Next time I will provide some examples before asking such a question.) Joepnl (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy ribbons

By any chance, would there be Hurricane Sandy awareness ribbons? If yes, what will the colors be, and where can I buy one?142.255.103.121 (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Send your dollars now to Sheesh I'm sure there's plenty of people cashing in on every aspect of Sandy, but it's generally best to avoid such scamopportunists. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that it is particularly helpful to cast aspersions when answering the question. The OPs question is very easy to answer: Type "Hurricane Sandy ribbons" into Google and you'll get several links to websites selling such ribbons. There doesn't appear to be any universal color or design to them; just what retailers feel like they want to make. I did find one site with a nice deep purple ribbon with the names of the affected states in pretty gold lettering on it. A few that I found are also selling blue ribbons as awareness ribbons. So, you'll have your options. --Jayron32 06:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth would a hurricane that gripped world news headlines for a week need an awareness ribbon? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The same reason tens of thousands left dead plant sexual organs outside a royal palace to honour a deceased former princess. Because they cared.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's called commemoration, Wehwalt, not "awareness". Nobody thought that your sexual organs were being laid down to make people aware of something of which they were unaware. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Which one with the nice deep purple ribbons is that? Which sites are the ones with the blue ribbons as awareness ribbons?142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

How would awareness of the Hurricane help? As I understand it, "awareness" of certain cancers is designed to make people... aware of them, so they might spot the warning signs. There won't be another Hurricane Sandy. I'd be unsurprised if there were hurricane awareness ribbons, but Hurricane Sandy ones seem a little pointless, except as a cynical fundraising exercise. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In all seriousness, the people of the East Coast and the Caribbean who have been rendered homeless by this disaster need your money a lot more than the ribbon-manufacturers do. Set aside slacktivism and actually help the people who are in need. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that's a more sensible approach. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there any sort of control? If the money from the sale of the ribbons went to those in need, that might be something. But if simply anyone can sell their own ribbons, with their own colours and designs, then it's safe to assume that at least some of them are quick fund-raising schemes for the ribbon makers, and the victims were never going to see a cent of it. In some countries, charity fund-raising drives are centrally controlled and sellers have to wear and/or produce on demand some official ID, exactly to prevent get-rich-quicksters chasing in on people's good natures at the expense of those who actually need the money. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can sell their own ribbons. Commercial free speech and so forth. I'd beware of "Proceeds from the sale of this product go to victims of Hurricane Sandy." comments, as a) How much of the proceeds? b) Which victims and c) Does the seller consider himself a victim of Hurricane Sandy?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright. How about Hurricane Sandy lapel pins?142.255.103.121 (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Same story I would imagine. Find a real charity that's definitely helping storm victims. And if you really care, you shouldn't need a ribbon or badge to tell other people. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Even The Onion never made me laugh this much :). Thanks 142.255.103.121. Joepnl (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What the heck is that supposed to mean?142.255.103.121 (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What I meant is that it's hard to beat trying to raise "awareness" for a hurricane that's been on the news for weeks. Possibly "mortality awareness ribbons". Raising money for relief is a good thing, but the word "awareness" is losing its original meaning fast now, having a new, much longer definition that contains at least the word "guilt". Joepnl (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Xi Jinping military service

A recent BBC article claims Xi Jinping "... has served in the Chinese military."[1]. Is this true? Or did the author confuse Xi's Central Military Commission post with military service? If this was a regular news article I would've just passed it off as an error but the feature is written by a former PM of Australia.A8875 (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Between 1979-1982, Xi was enlisted in the People's Liberation Army, but his actual role was serving as secretary in the General Office of the Central Military Commission, specifically serving as one of three secretaries to the then-Defence Minister. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet another US presidential election question-Electoral college Reform

Sorry if someone else has asked this already, or if its in the wiki somewhere, but in the last coupl eof days there have been a lot of US presidential elections. I guess it comes down to the desire for conclusive results, but I really can't see why the US electorate tolerates the winner takes all approach to the division of a State's electors, Republicans for example in California have effectively been disenfranchised, and I guess the same applies to Democrats in safe Republican states, but surely it can't be that hard to implement and sell the idea of dividing up a states electoral college votes in proportion to the popular vote a candidate recieves in a a state?--KTo288 (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the article "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact"? Gabbe (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

yes its not exactly what I'm thinking but not exactly, as I understand it the effect of the compact would aggregate the national vote and in effect would turn the entire United States into a single giant constituency. What I'm thinking of is covered in one line at [[2]], that is each candidate recieving a porportion of a States electors in line with his or her share of the popular vote in that state, and those electors casting those votes in favour of that candidate. To me it seems a good option, balancing as much as possible the value of the wishes of individual voters, but at the same time reflecting the consensus within individual States. I guess that one line in the article shows just how unpopular such an option would be.--KTo288 (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

KTo288: If one state alone assigns its electors proportionally, then it lessens its political influence (it "unilaterally disarms" in comparison to other states which remain winner-take-all). If California became proportional while everything else remained the same, then this would be a huge gift to the Republican party, making it significantly more difficult for Democratic candidates to be elected president... AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess the ideal would be for all States to adopt it, surely in a democracy fairness and legitimacy must count for something, even if it means that it becomes harder for one side to win over another.--KTo288 (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If there were such a system, then the relatively small states, such as Virginia, New Hampshire, and Iowa, which got much attention from the candidates, would not. They would go to the major cities without worrying about who wins Ohio, since that would be irrelevant to the result. It takes only 13 states to block a constitutional amendment. In my opinion, the only thing that will cause a change is a major breakdown, such as an outcome being determined by rogue electors.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why paying attention to major cities instead of half-empty states is a bad thing? I'd like everyone's voice to be heard, but given the choice between mainly listening to LA and NYC, or mainly listening to Ohio, the former seems very much fairer. Marnanel (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The swing states presumably are a more accurate cross-section of America than the solid-red and solid-blue states are. Those are the states where issues can be raised and challenged, thus informing everyone. If only the big cities are courted, then you might have a rural rebellion to deal with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• It is always worth bringing up Federalist No. 68 (text here: [3]) to show exactly the rationale behind the electoral college. Please note, however, how much history has drifted from the actual operation of the college itself. But it helps to understand exactly why it is in the constitution in the first place, and to understand how its operation today differs from how the Constitution writers envisioned it working. --Jayron32 18:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me come up with scenarios where it might make sense to change from a winner-take-all state to a proportional state:

A) One party is currently in control of both the legislative and executive branches of government, but the tide is turning, and they can tell that the vote will go the other way in the next election. Thus, they might want to switch to proportional votes, so they will still get some votes for their party. Of course, in the long run, being proportional might help the other party just as much.

B) There is some critical issue to the state, like the threatened closure of a major military base, and they want presidential candidates to promise to help them out. If they are a winner-take-all state, and the election isn't particularly close in that state, then there's no need for either candidate to make a promise. However, if they switch to a proportional vote, and this could make a candidate's promises to the state sway an electoral vote or two, then they might do so. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

But some states do have proportional representation for their electors, right? So I don't imagine it would need a constitutional amendment to allow other states to institute it. Particularly since how states decide on their electors is a matter for each state to decide free from federal influence (other than when a Bush is running and Florida is involved). And the advantage would be not only that the resulting winner would be a much truer reflection of the wishes of the voters (having 100% of the electors go towards a candidate who got 48% of the state's votes is not particularly representational of the wishes of the people) but it would eliminate the practice of candidates ignoring states which have a defined tilt, in favor of campaigning in the swing states. So, it seems as if by sticking with the winner take all system for electors, a state is willingly abdicating its chance to have any influence on the candidates. Gzuckier (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In Nebraska and Maine, each Representative district elects one Elector, and two more Electors are elected statewide; this is finer representation than in the other States, but it's not proportional representation as that term is commonly used. — I believe the Federal courts have sometimes used the Voting Rights Act (1965) to invalidate true PR. —Tamfang (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Do customer service workers in England address male customers as "Sir"?

In the United States, where we don't have an established nobility system, the word "sir" is still used pretty often just as a form of light formality, especially in the situation of a business interaction (but also to politely address males of unknown name outside of business interactions as well). For instance, it would be not at all improbable to see an employee at a gas station convenience store say to an unshaven, stained-shirt-wearing, slouching man "Thank you, sir." Or if some guy just dropped a dollar, another guy may very well say "Sir, you dropped a dollar." Both of these describe exactly scenes I've seen with my own eyes (which is to say, they are common). I was wondering, in England, where putting "Sir" in front of someone's name is a special thing that not everybody can just do, is the noun form (as in, service employees calling male customers "sir") not heard? If not, what is used to address males whose names you do not know? Is it exclusively "Mister"? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It depends totally on the context. "Sir" is extremely formal in UK English, and it would probably be used in a posh restaurant or department store. If I went to a "cheap and cheerful" cafe or local store then I would be addressed as "mate", "gov", or just "you" and now that I am old enough that it can't be mistaken as a pass I am often addressed as "dear" or "love" by female staff. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say "yes, occasionally" and when it happens it makes my skin crawl. In cases where the person's name isn't known, we find a way not to use an honorific. For example, if I saw someone drop something, I'd say "excuse me" to catch their attention. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Why the aversion? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm neither their schoolmaster nor their commanding officer, nor am I, as alluded to, a knight of the realm. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say there are variations in the UK which bear explanation, and some which are merely regional variation. It is the case in the uniformed services (police, fire...) that "sir" is used when addressing your superior. I found this out when my ex's cousin cringed after I said "Thank you, sir" after he bought me a drink. To me it was being polite: to him (a serving fireman) it was inappropriate usage in a social setting. Also, when I moved to South Yorkshire, it took me some time to get used to being called "luv" by complete strangers - people of both sexes are called "luv" as a matter of course in that county. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I do like the friendliness of South Yorkshire, and that usage does carry on to West Yorkshire to a certain extent. I did find it strange though when I had a builder from Barnsley say to me (another male) "I'll sort that out for yer in no time love"! -- Q Chris (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's "extremely formal", or that it "makes my skin crawl". It's certainly unusually polite, but not exactly rare. I generally look positively towards sales or service people who call me "sir", but then I must be either old, posh, or both.  :-( Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

And, frankly, I'd probably disagree to some extent with the "pretty often" in the U.S.. It was common in the 1950's and 1960's and before to teach kids and store clerks that it was extremely impolite not to use "sir" in virtually every transaction with anyone other than their close personal friends of equivalent age or to use their given name rather than "Mr. X" or "Miss X" or "Mrs. X". Failing to follow these rules was likely to get you whomped or fired. (Of course, it was also impolite to wear a hat or cap inside a restaurant, office, or home.) While I don't think its use today evokes the skin-crawling anti-class-consciousness here in the U.S. that it apparently does in the U.K., if not just dropped offhand and under one's breath, it seems kind of quaint. More's the pity. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

One situation where I think you could still use "pretty often" if not "almost always" is police officers addressing citizens, esp. offending citizens. "Sir, please step over here..." Also, I could imagine the probability of being addressed as "sir" rising in the US the more raucous one acted, actually. I could see a store manager who might not say to some poorly-dressed patron "Welcome, sir." saying to a patron who started yelling or being otherwise unpleasant "Sir, please calm down." 20.137.2.50 (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the UK usage. "Madam" is used even less than "Sir", if anything. French is much better in my opinion, where everyone uses "Monsieur" or "Madame", and what's more, they use it reciprocally. So if a shop assistant says "Bonjour madame" to me, I can "Bonjour madame" her back. No subservience, and no problem with what to say if you are trying to get someone's attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In Cornwall, you sometimes get (if you are of the opposite sex) "my lover" or rather "alroit moi luvver". A bit surprising the first time you hear it. A bit more likely from a bar maid than a bank clerk though. Alansplodge (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

When I lived in Cornwall, "my lover" was used for both sexes. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a man would say it to another man, or am I mistook? Alansplodge (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Was used to one and all. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Here in London, "Sir" or "Madam" is used quite regularly when addressing customers, regardless of how well the customer is dressed or not. This happens in posh stores and restaurants as much as fast food places and supermarkets. However, strangers are unlikely to address each other that way on the street. If someone dropped a pound coin, you might here "Excuse me, you dropped something", it would be unlikely to be "Sir, you dropped a pound." If a stranger calls you "sir", that is more likely to be prefacing something unpleasant they are about to say. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I allways find it extremely strange when people in movies refer to military personell, especially retired as "Sir" (as in a civilian adressing military personell). The same goes for police officers, I have respect for the jobs they do, but they are civil servants - not the other way round (I have lived in the UK since birth btw) 80.254.147.164 (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In the US, at least, it's a measure of respect. Yes, they're civil servants. And making your life's work dedicated to protecting others is something to (generally) respect. That seems to have been falling by the wayside a bit in my lifetime, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Class consciousness in the U.K.

Is it really so profound there that any hint of "poshness" causes the reactions noted in the last section, above? More importantly, why? Would members of the upper class feel the same way or feel slighted if they were not properly addressed? How about people who have hereditary peerages or the like, but who by income are lower or middle class? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC) PS: The "why" is the most important of my questions. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"How about people who have hereditary peerages or the like, but who by income are lower or middle class?" In the US, class is far more tied up with income than it is in the UK. In the UK, you can be practically penniless and still remain upper-class, especially if as you suggested you held a hereditary peerage! As an example, there was once a charity called the "Distressed Gentlefolk's Aid Association" which existed in order to give money to impoverished but upper-class people. Marnanel (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's still going, under a different name Elizabeth Finn Care - and it wasn't so much for the impoversished upper class but for the impoverished middle class. DuncanHill (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case, which is why I asked it. Thanks for the response. But how about the visceral reaction to poshness? Does it merely have to do with presumptuousness, that is, that there's a widely accepted sentiment that each class should know and remain in their place? Resentment of the upper classes? Something entirely different? I was really surprised by Dweller and TammyMoet's comments, above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In my case it is more a feeling for the other person's dignity. I felt extremely uncomfortable once when in a restaurant where the staff hung my coat up for me, pushed the chair in for me, and called me "sir" because if I had to do that then I would feel that I was in a servile position, having to do things for someone not because it was helpful to them in any significant way but just to demonstrate a position of inferiority. I know the attitude is very different in America, I once discussed it with a shop assistant who said "I'm polite to a customer in here, he's happy and will probably come back. I could find that the same guy is serving me a drink this evening and he'll call me sir and I'll be happy and leave him a nice tip". I suppose the difference is that historically this politeness was a one way thing in the UK. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I simply don't believe that most males in Britain would think that, if they were called "sir", they would feel embarrassed about the other person appearing "servile". It may be an age thing, but I would simply think that they were being a little over-polite. It's a bit like holding a door open for someone - I don't feel oppressed or servile doing that, unless I'm having to stand there for an unduly long time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, I'd say "yes it is really so profound". You only have to see the reaction to Andrew Mitchell's reported comment of "pleb" when addressing a police office to see the class divide in action. The UK has become so used to the veneer of equality that grew since WW2,that any threat of taking it back to the pre-war class-ridden society is viewed as quite serious. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree that "any hint of class entitlement" raises profound feelings, but I don't think this is necessarily linked to "any hint of poshness". For example nobody I know find's Boris Johnson's "bumbling" poshness offensive, but as TammyMoet says Andrew Mitchell's comment implying superiority was instantly offensive to many. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm just showing how ignorant I am about British attitudes and history, but I also didn't realize that the "pre-war class-ridden society" was a big deal. Rather than taking up a lot of space here to educate me, could you perhaps point me to a WP or external article or two that might serve to help me understand? Thank you for your response, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the classic photo usually used to illustrate the point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a classic sketch from the 1960's "Frost Report" that summarises the English view of class quite nicely. This site gives a synopsis and a link to a video of the sketch. Nothing has really changed since then, unfortunately. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A few years ago, I (a middle-aged white American male, dressed somewhat nicely for the theatre) was in the London Underground one evening. I needed to get to one of the branches of the Northern line and heard an announcement that there was no direct service to that branch but couldn't understand the instructions on how to get to that branch. I saw a black tube employee (probably of Caribbean descent) in uniform on the platform, and said, as I would have said to a subway employee of any color in the United States, "Sir, can you tell me how I can get to [name of my destination, which I've now forgotten]?" My sense was that he was surprised but pleased to be called "sir" and he gave me extremely helpful and detailed advice on reaching my destination. I had the strong sense that he wasn't used to being called "sir" by passengers, whereas if he worked in the States, he would be used to it. [I've just moved this comment down from the section above this one because I think it's more relevant here.] Marco polo (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes; I wouldn't call anyone who is supposed to be providing a service "sir", regardless of skin colour or social status. Even if it was a very senior police officer. He (or she) is supposed to call me "sir". However, I wouldn't be offended if they didn't. BTW, most London Underground staff are helpful and polite, although sometimes you meet a surly one (I commuted on the Central Line for 25 years). Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the flip side. Providing a service can be extremely demeaning, in many positions. I prefer to address people in those jobs as "sir" or "ma'am" and thank them when the transaction is complete. It certainly can brighten up their day to be treated as more than just an automaton. Or worse, as I've been witness to (and on the receiving end of). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012

Given the acrimonious debate about exactly what the voting population of Puerto Rico said they preferred on November 6: Would not knowledge of the breakdown of the eight (8) reasonable combinations of answers shed more light on this question? Specifically:

1. yes (continue present status) on 1 AND statehood on 2
2. yes on 1 AND associated sovereignty on 2
3. yes on 1 AND independence on 2
4. yes on 1 AND blank on 2 (strongly urged by PR-governor-elect Padilla)
5. no on 1 AND statehood
6. no on 1 AND associated sovereignty
7. no on 1 AND independence
8. no on 1 AND blank (perhaps unlikely, but not impossible)

Could such data be made directly available, or is it now forever buried within the separate raw totals for the two questions? DWIII (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Good question. It seems to me that the ballots are preserved for a significant amount of time -- electronic votes on machines should be easy to preserve, as should paper ballots, punchcard ballots, etc. There would be no reason to destroy them, at least not until many years have passed (or possibly ever). But I would seriously doubt that any tally has yet been made, or ever will be officially made, of the combinations of votes.

But: in 2000, the public had access after the fact to the actual ballots: from United States presidential election, 2000#Post recount:

The first independent recount was conducted by The Miami Herald and USA Today. The Commission found that under most recount scenarios, Bush would have won the election, but Gore would have won using the most generous standards.[64] Ultimately, a media consortium — comprising the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Tribune Co. (parent of the L.A. Times), Associated Press, CNN, Palm Beach Post and St. Petersburg Times[65] — hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago[66] to examine 175,010 ballots that were collected from the entire state

So maybe an interested news organization will do exactly what you suggest. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Will Obama help the "Palestinian people" build their state?

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Peace will come when the Arabs love their sons more than they hate us – Golda Meir – Netwwork (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC) I think this falls under the rule above that "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events.". No one can foresee the outcome of future negotiations regarding the Palestinian conflict or what role Obama will play in these. - Lindert (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I won't predict what he will do, but will note that he's now freer to do so, if he so chooses, since, as a lame duck, he no longer needs to worry about re-election and hence popularity. The Palestinian cause is not very popular in the US, due to the large Jewish voting block here and the perception that the elected Hamas government of the Gaza Strip is a terrorist organization. And Palestinians dancing in the streets to celebrate 9-11 didn't help their cause much: [4]. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The USA's historical support for Israel long before 9-11 in the face of opposition from many other countries and the UN hasn't help Palestinians and their attitudes much either, but I don't think any of that will help us in speculating what Obama will do. This thread was correctly hatted. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Palestinians seem utterly incompetent at public relations. Had they followed the example of Gandhi, and used non-violent protests only, they would have wooed the US over to their side long ago, who would have then pressured Israel to settle their disputes in a manner favorable to the Palestinians. Instead, they are viewed as terrorists and terrorist supporters in the US. StuRat (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. He won't have to worry about any future elections right now. Futurist110 (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama has publicly stated he supports the two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, see Obama#Israel. He's also a huge supporter of Israel. What will he actually do? You'll have to wait and see. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Supporting Israel does not equal to opposing a two-state solution. Also, Obama might have been less active on Israel-Palestine over the last 2 years due to his reelection campaign, but that's over now and he can't run again in 2016. I doubt his wife has any plans to run for office in the future either. Futurist110 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Greater Bangladesh

I read the article and it said about four districts of Assam with Bengali Muslim majority. What are their names and do they border with Bangladesh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There are 27 districts in Assam. Going just by the info on Wikipedia, Dhubri district at 74% Muslim is the only one with an obvious Muslim majority; there are five others with strict Muslim majorities: Barpeta district 59%, Hailakandi district 58%, Goalpara district 54%, Karimganj district 52% and Nagaon district 51%.

Dhubri, Goalpara, Hailakandi and Karimganj border Bangladesh; Barpeta borders Goalpara. Nagaon is sort of in the middle, bordering none of the others nor Bangladesh.

NB: Our articles do not state which year this data is from. Also note that our articles don't give religious demographics for 11 of the 27 districts (including the four new ones), so there could be more than these six.

I'm sorry I do not know which are the four to five of interest to the United Liberation Front of Assam, since the source given in the Greater Bangladesh article is a book not available online. You could ask your library about getting it via inter-library loan. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Code of Tehauroa (1884)

Where can I find a copy of the Code of Tehauroa (1884), the constitutional law code of the Kingdom of Raiatea?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I put the phrase through Google and interestingly - in all of cyberspace the phase "Code of Tehauroa" occurs only in two places - this page and at Tehauroa. Perhaps searching for spelling variants might be more productive. Roger (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It is my translation of "Codes Tehauroa" which even at that only appears in two book sources that discuss it but not necessarily gives the original. I think it would be in French or Tahitian.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's legal to kill a Scotsman in York?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568475/Ten-stupidest-laws-are-named.html

Surely that can't be right. What's the truth about that law? --128.42.216.76 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Only if he's carrying a bow and arrow. Now seriously, is anything there true? Surtsicna (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule, anything on a list of "dumb laws" can be presumed false unless proven otherwise. The Law Commission explicitly describes this one as not true (it probably never was), though interestingly #9 is nominally still in force. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Highland Scot, or lowland Scot? Gzuckier (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

All of those are total BS. This list has been doing the rounds of the internet for years, and the Telegraph is not exactly known as a reliable news source. It's basically a wannabe middle class version of a tabloid. You can Google any of them just to debunk them. Try "age of consent Japan", and you will see there is one. It's utter nonsense. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

September 11 and the dancing Palestinians

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If in the wake of the September 11 attacks, the U.S. dropped a bomb on the dancing Palestinians, would that have been accepted as retaliation like the missiles launched by the Clinton administration on Sudan and Afghanistan? Netwwork (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC) You're inventing something that didn't happen and asking us what may have happened had your invented scenario actually worked that way? I'm afraid you've mistaken the Wikipedia reference desk for an internet forum. Your initial post here may be a worthwhile and interesting discussion for somewhere, just not here. --Jayron32 22:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC) The reference desk is a place for questions with factual answers. Are you asking whether the United States bombed Palestine in the wake of the September 11 attacks? The answer is 'no.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Nope, the OP is not asking is the US has bombed them, just what would have happened. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC) The word "would" is the problem there. It demands speculation. Not here thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC) I haven't mistaken it for an internet forum. Anyway, it's surprising to find people who defend Palestinians on here. Netwwork (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC) That comment, taken with your previous postings, makes it pretty clear that you are trying to promote a rather distasteful agenda here. Please follow the advice you have been given and go somewhere else. DuncanHill (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Where is the defence of Palestinians? HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Apparently the failure to even entertain the idea of bombing them. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Nope, because the "dancing Palestinians", as stupid as they might look, were not a threat to the US, specially when Arafat demanded that they stop celebrating and generating worldwide negative attention towards them. That was more of an one-time event than of a serious anti-US tendency. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Forcing sovereign government to pay

What are the instruments that have been applied in the past? The first thing that jumps to mind is confiscating ships, airplanes, companies, and cargo of the country. But, are these measures being applied? Philoknow (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Libya paid up for the Lockerbie bombing after being subject to trade sanctions for a rather long time. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, European countries or the United States took over the customs-houses of various Latin American or Caribbean nations on several occasions, and applied the collected import tax revenue to the settling of the external debt... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Then there was the time that France basically used naked raw blackmail to extort 90 million gold francs from Haiti... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't/can't countries seize the bank accounts of foreign countries, within their reach? Gzuckier (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Political allegiances of CEOs

How many CEO's are republicans and how many are democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1gmangsa (talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's as vague a question as I've seen here in many a long day. I presume you're talking about Americans, but can you define what you mean by "CEOs", and what you mean by "republicans" and "democrats"?

I should warn you that this information is almost certainly not available anywhere; we might know about a few CEOs who've declared their allegiances, but they'd be a very small percentage of the total, no matter how you define "CEO". Plus, political allegiances change from day to day, particularly where $$ is concerned. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I would think anyone with the cojones, Jack, would... well, never mind. Every ref desk question has someone willing to make up an answer to it. No? μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If I may quote AnonMoos: "Whatever". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the question:

1. You might think of CEOs as big fat rich corporate types in suits, but the vast majority are probably your every-day guy at a small company, but they are not famous and you will never hear about them.
2. Regardless of how you define CEO, most are not going to broadcast their political affiliation.
3. Even if you went by political contributions, most large contributors these days donate to party's indirectly, and often anonymously.
4. Even where donation information exists, it is often inconsistent (case in point, even Bain Capital has donated to Democratic campaigns).

If you want to look at corporate donations (rather than individual donations), you may glean something you find interesting from this list. However, especially since Citizens United, many of the donations are by or to political action committees, so as I said in problem 3, it's not obvious who is supporting what. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Most corporations donate to both parties. When you are buying access to the machinery of government, it makes more sense to spread the money among everyone who is likely to be in a position to return a little quid pro quo your way, instead of trying to pick winners. If you pay for the campaigns of everyone, they all are beholden to you. --Jayron32 01:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have decent statistics you can only pick the winner and save money. Philoknow (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You'll find both even at the highest spots. Warren Buffet is a dem, but Donald Trump is not. Philoknow (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well just an info that you may want to know. Bill Gate is a democrat. 174.20.101.190 (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)